Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

Transcription

1 Final Report Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England A survey of senior Local Authority Waste Managers in England to understand planned changes to recycling and waste services, and drivers and barriers to change. Project code: RCY005 Survey date: June - December 2014 Publication date: March 2016

2 WRAP s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; re-thinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through reuse and recycling. Find out more at Written by: WRAP While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

3 Executive summary In 2014, WRAP conducted telephone and face to face surveys of 119 Local Authority (LA) Waste Managers in England with the aim of understanding more about the changes planned for recycling and waste management services and the drivers for these changes. The survey also aimed to identify the barriers local authorities were facing locally in increasing recycling. Forty three per cent of English local authorities were surveyed, of which 45% were Waste Collection Authorities and 37% Unitary Authorities. The number interviewed is close to a nationally representative profile. The findings of the survey fit into five broad areas. 1 Future plans for Local Authority Services Fifty nine per cent of LA waste managers reported that some changes to the services in their authority were planned over the next five years. The majority of changes centred around additions of lightweight materials to the dry recycling service. Common themes showed a consideration of further reductions in residual waste capacity either by lower frequency services or reduced container capacity and whether to charge for garden waste services. Therefore, there is limited evidence to indicate that significant increases in recycling tonnage will come from changes that are currently planned or committed to, with positive increases often negated by other service changes. However, further pressure on budgets is likely to result in changes to services even if the nature of that change is not yet identified or planned. 2 Drivers for change The most frequently mentioned driver identified through the survey is the need to make financial savings and address budget pressures. Responses included introducing a new service to divert more materials from landfill and hence make a saving on landfill costs and amending existing services in some way in order to reduce costs and save money. Approximately, one third of scheme changes are the result of multiple drivers although the majority of those identified included finance. Where finance was said to be a driver, it was acknowledged that environmental, social or political benefits would be experienced as well as cost saving. Whilst local priorities were mentioned, neither national policy initiatives nor national targets were cited as key drivers for change. 3 Plans for engagement and monitoring of existing services The general mood of the majority of Waste Managers was that communications and monitoring of services are the first areas likely to be cut given budget pressures. This may lead to reduced capture, increased contamination or both and consequently poorer performing recycling services. The survey found that Waste Managers are under pressure to do more with less and would prefer to reduce or stop communications rather than a service. Large scale communications campaigns appear to be declining with increasing focus on targeted communications. To reduce spend, Waste Managers are moving away from Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

4 traditional communications such as distribution of printed materials and are now focusing on free channels such as websites and social media. 4 Barriers to increasing recycling and overcoming these barriers Finance was the most commonly mentioned barrier to increasing recycling activities. Finance related barriers were also cited by Waste Managers as significantly impacting the ability to make changes which would result in increasing recycling. Barriers relating to collection contracts or due to a lack of co-operation within waste partnerships were raised by many but generally were seen as less important since it was felt these could be more easily overcome, especially with time. 5 Further support A number of opportunities to help increase recycling were suggested unprompted by the Waste Managers interviewed. In some cases this was direct support from WRAP, others suggested support from central government. The suggestions relating to WRAP were wide ranging such as provision of operational advice; communications to inspire the public, including a national campaign; provision of money saving ideas; support to help increase skills/cababilities in the marketing of recyclable materials and in the procurement of services; and advice on collecting glass (in the context of the separate collection requirements and TEEP). It was suggested that support from central government could include capital grants; funding for specific consultancy requirements, staff and communications; policy/legislation on packaging producers providing materials that are widely recycled; vision and clarity on long term aims including for more standardised services and ways of working; introduction of statutory targets to incentivise food waste collections; speeding up planning decisions for waste infrastructure; and interventions to help stabilise material prices. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

5 Contents 1.0 Background Research Questions Methodology Profile of local authorities covered by the survey Future plans for Local Authority Services Planned service changes in the next 5 years Drivers Drivers for change Multiple drivers Plans for communications and monitoring of services Communications Monitoring Barriers to increasing recycling Key barriers mentioned Additional barriers mentioned Further Support Gaps, key limitations and areas that could benefit from further research.. 40 Appendix A: Further details of planned changes Appendix B: Communication and engagement activities Appendix C: Local Authority Questionnaire Table 1: Profile of local authorities covered by the survey... 6 Table 2: Profile of local authorities by region... 7 Figure 1: The percentage of local authorities planning a service change by service area. 9 Table 3: Number of planned service changes Figure 2: Planned Service Changes Figure 3: Dry recycling service changes being considered over the next five years Figure 4: Dry Material to be added to kerbside dry recycling schemes Figure 5 Garden waste service changes over the next five years Figure 6: Planned and considered food recycling service changes over the next five years Figure 7: Planned and considered residual waste service changes over the next five years Figure 8: Likelihood of planned changes Figure 9: Local Authority drivers for making service changes Table 4: Number of service changes influenced by multiple drivers Figure 10: Communications current and planned activities Figure 11: Monitoring Activities Figure 12: Barriers to increasing recycling as identified by LA Waste Managers Figure 13: Implementation of Planned Changes Figure 14: Timescale for implementation of planned service changes Figure 15: Impact of Proposed Service Changes Tonnage Forecast Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

6 1.0 Background The objective of this research was to survey local authority Waste Managers in England to gain insight into what service changes local authorities may have in the pipeline, what is driving those changes and to identify opportunities for supporting increasing recycling rates. A nationally representative sample was sought and an analysis of the characteristics of the authorities we spoke to shows this was largely achieved. Within the sample, WRAP has also identified a sub-sample of authorities considered to have the greatest opportunity and/or potential to contribute to the achievement of the national recycling target in This report provides an overview of the key findings from this research with an emphasis on the national picture. A total of 119 surveys were carried out, representing 139 local authorities, including responses from joint collection authorities and waste partnership. The survey accounts for the responses of senior Waste Managers from 43% of all English local authorities. 2.0 Research Questions The key questions the research looked to answer were: 1. What service changes are local authorities planning to make to their waste/recycling services in the next five years and the likelihood of the change happening? 2. What is driving the changes to waste and recycling services by local authorities? 3. What barriers do Local authorities see to increasing recycling in their respective localities? 4. What plans do local authorities have for engagement with householders on recycling and for monitoring of existing services? The research questions were designed to help understand what factors are driving changes in service provision, how these factors relate to each other and what factors Local Authority Waste Managers see as constraining their ability to increase recycling rates. Details of specific service change plans were asked about in order to help WRAP project potential changes in recycling rates and to identify where and how local authorities might best be supported with their future plans. For the purpose of the report, respondents will be referred to as Local Authority Waste Managers (LA Waste Managers), however job titles and positions of the respondent varied between directors, heads of service and senior managers with varying job titles. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

7 3.0 Methodology The surveys were conducted by telephone or face-to-face between June and October 2014, by the appointed contractors or WRAP Recycling and Collections Advisers, and lasted approximately 25 minutes. Interviewers were briefed in the design of the questionnaire and given guidance from WRAP s Research and Evaluation team on how the questions should be asked. There was minimal use of prompting with the interviews being conducted in a discussion format and interviewers coding responses according to set answer lists, adding additional categories where needed to ensure all feedback was captured. A copy of the questionnaire used by the interviewers to guide the discussion can be found in Appendix C. Respondents were assured of anonymity in providing their responses where it was requested, to help ensure an open and honest discussion. The vast majority of interviews were conducted via telephone (104 interviews), rather than face-to-face (15 interviews). Interviewers were instructed to speak with senior Local Authority representatives at Head of Service or Director level. The seniority of staff engaged with was important in order to instil confidence that the responses obtained were from those with experience of decision making in the Council, who would understand the likelihood of service changes and have a good understanding of local key drivers and barriers influencing any service change. Interviewers were selected due to their significant experience in service delivery and experience of engaging with senior Local Authority staff in order to build rapport and recover the required information from each session. Two distinct sets of local authorities were identified. One set targeted local authorities that in theory could make a greater contribution to recycling rates nationally because: They had an above average number of households; Their collection contracts were due to be renewed in the next 2 years; They were in the bottom quartile for dry recycling performance and therefore appeared to have the most potential to increase capture of recyclables or organic waste. This provided a sub-sample that offers specific insights about the issues facing these authorities and Waste Managers in particular. A wider criterion was applied to the second set such that, taken as a whole, findings from the sample would be close to a nationally representative profile as outlined below. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

8 4.0 Profile of local authorities covered by the survey To assess how representative the achieved sample is, Table 1 compares the sample authorities against the total nationally for a number of area and service characteristics, with the overall sample coverage of 43% nationally. For most categories the percentage coverage is close to 43% meaning there can be confidence that the overall representivity is high. Table 1: Profile of local authorities covered by the survey Number of LA Waste Managers Interviewed Total number in England Percentage of sample LAs compared to the national picture Authority Type Collection % Unitary % Collection Service Provider DSO % Waste Management Company % Other 3 Rurality Mixed % Rural % Urban % Recycling Performance Low Performance <30% % Mid Performing % High Performance >50% % Area North % South % Garden waste provision Charged garden waste % Free garden waste % No garden waste % Food Waste Provision Separate food waste % Food with garden waste % Both % None % Weekly Residual Waste Commitment DCLG Weekly Collection Support Recipient % Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

9 The local authorities interviewed were split into North and South groups for purely logistical reasons. 81 of a total of 189 local authorities in the North were interviewed and 58 of a total of 137 in the South. The classification for North and South along with regional locations can be seen in Table 2. Table 2: Profile of local authorities by region North or South Number of LAs completed survey Total number of LAs in region Percentage of LAs interviewed by region North East North % North West North % Yorkshire and the Humber North % East Midlands North % West Midlands North % Eastern South % London South % South East South % South West South % Analysis showed no apparent trends by north / south so this classification is not assessed further in the results nor is presented separately in the charts. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

10 5.0 Future plans for Local Authority Services Summary 59% of local authority Waste Managers interviewed were planning to make at least one service change in the next five years. However the type of change suggested, the number of services affected and the likelihood of full roll out show the commitment to significant service changes in the coming years is minimal. Therefore, there is no evidence that significant increases in recycling tonnage will come from services changes that are currently planned. However, the situation is complex; Waste Managers we spoke to recognised that continuing pressures on budgets would likely drive some change even if the nature of any change was uncertain at the present time. The service changes most frequently cited included: Adding a new material to a dry recycling service generally plastics or other low weight materials Introducing a charge for the garden waste collection service Considering introducing a food waste collection service or amending an existing service Changes to refuse capacity and/or collection frequency There is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the changes will be rolled out, and if so how and when. Where service changes were discussed, very few were being implemented at the time of the survey with the majority still considering options. For example, 15 Waste Managers mentioned food waste collections, two stated their authorities were introducing food waste collections whereas in the other 13 authorities this option was being considered. 5.1 Planned service changes in the next 5 years To get an understanding of planned service changes, respondents were asked about the service changes they were planning to make in the next five years ( ). Respondents were asked to discuss only service changes that were beyond an ideas stage and had been discussed in a strategy document or as part of local service plans. In some instances the planned changes were well progressed in their development and in others the details were to be defined following a review. The likelihood of those planned changes coming to fruition is considered in section Key waste statistics for for the local authorities taking part in the survey were assessed. There are no apparent trends between waste arisings, recycling tonnage and recycling rate for the local authorities making changes compared to those local authorities not making any changes. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

11 Percentage of proposed service change The percentage of local authorities planning to make changes to services in their areas, as reported by those interviewed, is illustrated in Figure 1. Thirty-five per cent are planning changes relating to the dry recycling service, 22% to garden services, 21% to food waste collection services and 20% to the refuse service. In some cases LA Waste Managers reported that changes were planned to more than one service; as shown by the any service change bar 59% (70/119) will make at least one service change. Figure 1: The percentage of local authorities planning a service change by service area 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% No change Changing 30% 20% 10% 0% Change to the DRY service Change to the GARDEN service Change to the FOOD service Change to the REFUSE service Any service change Of the 70/119 (59%) Waste Managers stating that they were looking at making a change, the majority are planning changes that will only affect one service. This can be seen in Table 3. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

12 Table 3: Number of planned service changes Number of planned services changes Number of local authorities interviewed Further details of the planned changes by service area can be seen in Figure 2. The most common service change cited was adding material/s to a dry recycling collection with 27 Waste Managers stating they will be doing so. Charging for garden waste and changes to food waste collections were other common changes proposed by LA Waste Managers. Other changes recorded by LA Waste Managers included seven amending bulky waste collections with more emphasis on re-use / recycling and five were developing commercial waste services or integrating this service with the domestic service. Full service, efficiency or vehicle reviews had been commissioned by 17 LA Waste Managers to help inform service changes. Figure 2: Planned Service Changes COMMERICAL - Recycling BULKY WASTE - Recycling or Reuse Service/Vehicle/ Efficency Review REFUSE Change Containment REFUSE Change Frequency FOOD Stop or amend a service FOOD Introduce collection FOOD Introduce liners GARDEN Change frequency GARDEN Add/ remove material GARDEN Change to charging DRY Stop a service DRY Increase capacity DRY Change frequency DRY Change collection profile DRY Add a material/s Count of respondents Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

13 Other planned changes mentioned during the interviews with the LA Waste Managers included: Contract to be awarded for recycling street sweepings Contract to be awarded for glass collections from bring sites Enforcement activity to address contamination in the dry recycling stream Selling commercial waste service Potential closures of HWRCs(Household Waste Recycling Centres) Residual bin capacity - graded charging Small scale trials of WEEE collections, hard plastics, cartons and 3-weekly residual collections Based on the responses from the LA Waste Managers the current level of planned changes to recycling services could have a very limited impact on the recycling rate nationally. This is because the overall tonnage gains expected from these new services (e.g. adding plastics) at a national level would be small, and reductions in tonnages recycled can be anticipated from measures such as more local authorities introducing garden waste charges, or stopping services. In addition, a few LA Waste Managers reported they were planning on implementing changes in the near future. This is discussed further in Likelihood of planned changes to come to fruition. The reasons provided by LA Waste Managers for having no planned changes to services on the horizon are discussed further in Section 8.0 Barriers to increasing recycling Common changes overall in dry service change Among the LA Waste Managers who told us they were considering changes in thecoming years, changes to the dry recycling service were the most common. The details of these changes can be seen in Figure 3. Figure 3: Dry recycling service changes being considered over the next five years Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

14 Adding a dry material to a current service was the most common service change within the changes to the dry recycling service. The types of materials to be added are detailed in Figure 4. There were a number of other common themes in relation to dry materials which included reviewing current recycling systems by looking into different service profiles/options, container capacity and collection frequency. Amending the service profile was discussed by 18 LA Waste Managers. The changes included four rolling out fortnightly collections of co-mingled dry recycling, amending collection methods and containers, running trials and extending the bring sites available. The majority however, were considering their options through service/ efficiency reviews of the dry recycling service which included various options from weekly collections to co-mingled dry recycling. We re looking to explore options to increase the efficiency of the current service. Paper is currently collected as a separate pass and the Authority feels that the cost of delivering this service is not out-weighed by the income received. They want to look at a number of options including a fully co-mingled approach. Change to frequency was being implemented by two local authorities, with a further seven considering this as an option. We would like to explore options around making recycling weekly to increase recycling rates However, one LA Waste Manager reported reducing recycling collection frequency, with a further three considering this. Currently the authority is looking to possibly move paper back to every other week as a cost saving exercise. It will be a disincentive to recycle so may not be pursued." Increasing container capacity for dry recycling is being rolled out in six authorities, with a further two considering this as an option. Stopping dry recycling services was being considered by three local authorities. Two LA Waste Managers related this to removing material (glass and textiles) from a current service, whilst another LA Waste Manager reported considering removing recycling collections from hard to reach areas. Considering removing recycling [services] completely in hard to reach areas due to high operational costs of implementing [reducing] contamination process there and lack of yield from these areas. Adding a material to the dry recycling service was the most common planned change to services. The materials most likely to be added are plastic (packaging) pots, tubs and trays (PTTs) as can be seen in Figure 4. In some cases this will be introduced as part of a full service change when a new dry recycling scheme is introduced, whilst others plan to Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

15 Number of respondents add materials to the current service. Other popular materials to be added are (beverage /food) cartons, WEEE and textiles. The low number of changes to dry recycling services, along with light weighting of materials, suggests that the net tonnage and hence the overall impact on the national recycling rate will be low. However, as discussed later, there is significant uncertainty whether some of these proposed changes will go ahead. Figure 4: Dry Material to be added to kerbside dry recycling schemes Plastic pots, tubs Textiles Cartons WEEE Cardboard Batteries Glass Aerosols Metal pots and Books Common themes for garden waste collection service changes For garden waste collection services, the most common change is to introduce charging for garden waste collections. 19 LA Waste Managers were looking to implement this change. All the changes being planned or considered for garden waste services can be seen in Figure 5. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

16 Count of respondents Figure 5: Garden waste service changes over the next five years Implementing a charge Amend current charged service Considering charging GARDEN Change to charging Adding food Remove card Removing food GARDEN Add/ remove material Weekly with food Winter suspension GARDEN Change frequency Where implementing a charge for garden waste collections was cited by Waste Managers, 13 authorities were considering implementing a charge, three were in the process of implementing a charge and three were looking at amending the current chargeable service. A mixed service is currently offered, however they would like to explore options around charging for garden waste or suspending the service to help fund other service improvements Changes to collection frequency included three authorities reducing frequency by introducing a winter suspension of collections and two authorities increasing to weekly to enable food waste to be collected. Garden waste will still be collected fortnightly but the service will only be provided 40 weeks of the year (rather than 52 weeks). In total five LA Waste Managers reported planning to remove food from garden waste collections. This was to enable a charge for garden waste to be implemented. In some instances, the food waste is being removed so a cheaper treatment route could be used for the garden waste. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

17 Count of respondents Removing food as a result of charging for garden waste - no interest in separate food waste. Although some LA Waste Managers were looking to remove food from garden waste collections, two authorities were planning to introduce food waste to the garden waste collection, whilst another is removing cardboard from the garden waste collection Common themes with food waste service changes Planned changes relating to food waste services can be seen in Figure 6. Planning or considering introducing a food waste service was stated by 15, amending or stopping the food waste service completely was stated by 11 and the discussion on liner provision was stated by nine. Figure 6: Planned and considered food recycling service changes over the next five years Considering liners Introductory roll Promote carrier bags Introducing liners Considering Introduce a service Considering to stop Stopping collections Separating food from garden Participation Extend FOOD Introduce liners FOOD Introduce collection FOOD Stop or amend a service Of those stating they would introduce separate food waste collections, 13 were in the stages of considering if a food waste service could be introduced and only two are actually implementing the change. Some LA Waste Managers discussed making amendments to a current food service. This included two looking at extending the service to more households, four were changing Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

18 the way food waste is to be collected by separating it from garden waste and one was looking at amending the service to improve participation. Stopping the food waste collection service was being considered by two local authorities, whilst a further two local authorities already had decided to stop food waste collections completely. Food waste service being removed due to lack of incentive and due to fiscal constraints. Provision of liners was discussed by nine LA Waste Managers as a planned change. Three of which were looking to introduce liners free of charge, two were going to promote the use of carrier bags as an alternative to supplying liners, two were planning to provide an introductory roll of liners on the start of their service and two were considering providing liners if the costs stacked up. In total 63 of 119 authorities provide a food waste collection. Encourage use of plastic carrier bags as liners for caddies In one instance the LA Waste Manager was unable to introduce liners due to the requirements of the treatment facility. Might consider providing liners if those running the IVC plant could be convinced that liners do not affect the processing negatively Common themes for refuse collection services changes Changes to refuse collection services either by changing container capacity or changing collection frequency was referenced by 32 LA Waste Managers. Details of the changes can be seen in Figure 7. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

19 Count of respondents Figure 7: Planned and considered residual waste service changes over the next five years Increase in problem area Communal collections Considering 3/4 weekly Increase bin size Sacks replaced by bins Smaller wheeled bins Reducing capacity 8 6 Considering fortnightly Considering 4 Considering options reducing Change 2 Rolling out 3-weekly to frequency is Rolling being out considered by 17 LA Waste Managers. 16 of these changes relate to a decrease in fortnightly collection frequency. The one LA Waste Manager looking to increase collection 0 frequency is only doing so in problem areas and not for the local authority as a whole. REFUSE Change Frequency REFUSE Change Containment Fortnightly collection was the most commonly cited option for reducing frequency and this is being considered by five LA Waste Managers with a further two planning to implement this service change. However, often these changes are planned to go hand in hand with another service change. If a good business case for introducing food waste could be made, we might consider going fortnightly residual. Three weekly collections is being given serious consideration by four authorities and at an advanced stage with one, with the LA Waste Manager stating a three weekly collection was being implemented. We re watching with interest those authorities that have proposed a move to 3 weekly residual waste collections. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

20 Only one LA Waste Manager is looking at increasing refuse collection frequency. However, this frequency increase would only be in high density housing areas with specific problems and will not be extended to cover all other households. Changing residual bin capacity is another change being considered and reported by Waste Managers as an option which would help improve recycling performance. Nine LA Waste Managers are currently considering reducing residual capacity, whilst three authorities will be introducing smaller bins to households. Effective residual capacity is one of the few options we have to drive [recycling] capacity up further..possibility of addressing this to push up recycling rates further. We would like to explore options around reducing residual waste capacity. 140l may be too much of a jump but 180l may be tolerable to politicians. LA Waste Managers are also looking at other ways to reduce capacity. One authority is issuing smaller bins when replacements are needed whilst another is limiting capacity by moving from an unlimited sack collection to wheeled bins. Only one authority was looking at increasing capacity but only for some households, such as larger families Likelihood of planned changes being introduced To understand the likelihood of planned changes being introduced, respondents were asked to state how certain they felt that plans that had been discussed would go ahead. Where a response was coded definite interviewers were able to establish that a decision had been made at Committee (or the appropriate) level. Uncertain implies that plans are still at discussion stage within the relevant Department. Figure 8 illustrates there is a degree of uncertainty around planned changes being implemented. Small changes to a service such as adding a material to the dry recycling collection are more likely to happen as these generally will not require major changes to contracts nor incur significant cost. Conversely, adding a new service or major service changes, such as introducing a food waste collection, amendments to refuse collections and introducing charging for garden waste have a lower level of certainty of being introduced. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

21 Figure 8: Likelihood of planned changes REFUSE Change containment REFUSE Change Frequency FOOD Stop or amend service FOOD Introduce collection FOOD Introduce liners GARDEN Change collection frequency GARDEN Add/remove material GARDEN Change to garden waste charging Dry Stop a service DRY Increase capacity of containment DRY Change collection frequecy DRY Change collection system DRY Add a material Count of respondents Definite Fairly certain Likely to happen Uncertain Respondents were also asked: How the changes would be rolled out The timescales for when the changes would be implemented The expected impact on tonnage collected These questions were considered to be helpful in understanding the impact on national recycling performance over time. A summary of the responses to these questions can be found in Appendix A. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

22 6.0 Drivers Summary The most frequently mentioned driver for service changes cited by LA Waste Managers relates to finance. Whether this is introducing a new service to make savings through increasing diversion of waste from landfill or amending services in same way to save money, it is evident that pressures on local authority budgets are driving changes. Environmental and local priorities are discussed as drivers, although usually alongside a financial driver. Approximately, one third of planned service changes are influenced by multiple drivers and most of these include finance. Whilst local priorities were mentioned national policy and targets were not cited as key drivers. To gain insight into the motivations for service change, respondents were asked to outline the specific drivers for each planned service change. These drivers were split into three catergories; financial, environmental and local priorties. Local priorities were both social, such as making recycling easier for residents, and political such as priority given to increasing recycling compared to priorities for other services and the presence of locally set recycling targets. The results can be seen in Figure 9. Figure 9: Local Authority drivers for making service changes REFUSE Change containment REFUSE Change frequency FOOD Stop or amend a service FOOD Introduce food collection FOOD Introduce liners GARDEN Change collection frequency GARDEN Add/ remove material GARDEN Charging for garden waste DRY Stop a service DRY Increase capacity DRY Change collection frequency DRY Change current profile DRY Add a material/s Count of respondents Financial e.g. to save money Environmental e.g. divert waste from landfi Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

23 6.1 Drivers for change Finance was the most frequently stated driver (85 of 183 drivers mentioned) by LA Waste Managers as a reason for service changes, however for a third of service changes, multiple drivers have influenced the action of the individual authorities. Financial Where finance was said to be a driver, this focussed on pressure from within local authorities to achieve cost savings. "The service has to achieve a saving of...million in the next five years" Reducing the total cost of residual waste disposal was frequently noted in combination with increasing income from the sale of recyclates to help improve financial standing. Environmental Environmental drivers influenced a number of service changes and was the second most common driver as reported by 55 LA Waste Managers. Local Priorities Local priorities can lead to both social and political drivers. Social drivers include making recycling easier, more consistent and inclusive for householders, making recycling cheaper for residents and responding directly to demand for change from householders. In total, social drivers were mentioned by 18 LA Waste Managers. There is a mood to standardise the service if possible, to make it easier for the public. There is a demand from the public for a separate food waste collection, plus people miss the cardboard now that it is not included in the [garden waste] collection." There are clear social benefits from providing a free bulky collection service to those in need. Political drivers were referenced by 18 LA Waste Managers in the form of working towards the 2020 recycling target (of 50% nationally) or locally set recycling targets. We want to go up to a recycling rate of 60-79% which is the reason for the trials. There were also a couple of mentions of wishing to keep up with the recycling performance of other local authorities,thereby improving their standing in the rankings. We want to increase our position in the recycling table. Reference to legal obligations were made by only two LA Waste Managers referring to TEEP. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

24 The change is also being made because of TEEP." In addition to those above, the following drivers were also mentioned: Contract renewal e.g. a new contract offered broader scope to include textiles (3) Infrastructure e.g. change in vehicles made service change possible (1) Technical problems e.g. MRF demanding contamination by textiles to be reduced, the use of MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) prompting a re-use scheme to divert WEEE from the system so as to mitigate against experiencing the associated risks of WEEE entering the MBT process (3) 6.2 Multiple drivers 34 of the individual planned service changes stated by the LA Waste Managers were influenced by more than one driver. Finance was almost always a driver along with the environment or local priorities as shown in Figure 4. Table 4: Number of service changes influenced by multiple drivers Drivers Number of service changes influenced by more than one driver Finance & Environment 10 Finance & Local Priorities 11 Finance, Environment and Local Priorities 9 Environment & Local Priorities 4 Whilst multiple drivers were often mentioned they were not often seen as having equal weighting. For example, where finance was said to be a driver, it was acknowledged that environmental, social or political impacts would be experienced as well as a monetary cost saving. "There is a real need to drive down the cost of the collection service, and one way to do this is to reduce the fleet...clearly there are environmental benefits attached to this,...in terms of increasing recycling collection...(and)..reducing vehicle movements". There were a couple of examples however, where drivers were viewed equally: Finance is a significant driver... and spend will be made where environmentally and socially there is the greatest benefit. "Although the motivation is largely financial it s also about giving the householder more choice [by introducing a kerbside collection of WEEE]. Householders like it and it s not really an additional cost" Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

25 7.0 Plans for communications and monitoring of services Summary The general mood of the majority of LA Waste Managers interviewed is that communications and monitoring are the first areas likely to be cut as a result of budget pressures. Consequently this may give rise to decreases in recycling performance through reduced capture, increased contamination or both. LA Waste Managers under pressure to do more with less would choose to loose / reduce communications rather than a service. There is large scale communications campaigns taking place and more focus on targeted communications and monitoring. To save money local authorities appear to be moving away from traditional communications such as distributing printed materials and are now To understand local authority plans for communications and monitoring, respondents were asked if their authorities were carrying out communications and would maintain this activity; carrying out and planned to expand their communications activity; planned to introduce communications; or carrying out communications but planned to stop a number of communications and engagement activities. 7.1 Communications The communications tools LA Waste Managers referenced in relation to waste and recycling services can be seen in Figure 10. As illustrated the most popular include webpages, social media and calendars. Although provision of liners free of charge for food waste caddies is not a communications tool as such it was included as liners do encourage people to recycle their food waste and liners can be printed with instructional information. Four LA Waste Managers stated that their authorities provided no waste and recycling communications to householders at all. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

26 Figure 10: Communications current and planned activities Website pages Calendars Social media Leafleting Work to address contamination Door-to-door engagement PR Other comms Provision of free liners Currently carrying out Currently carrying out but plan to stop Plan to introduce No activity 7.2 Monitoring Monitoring includes compositional analysis, participation monitoring and other surveys. These were less common than communication activities. Figure 11: Monitoring Activities Compositional analysis Participation Monitoring Surveys Currently carrying out Currently carrying out but plan to stop Plan to introduce No activity Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

27 Less monitoring of how residents are using their waste and recycling services may mean that LA Waste Managers are not fully informed as to which collections are working well or poorly and where. Having local intelligence on whether there is low capture of recyclables, rejection of material or inefficient services is important in managing the costs of the overall service. A total of eight different trials were being run in six local authority areas at the time the interviews were conducted. In most cases it was stated that the outcome would determine whether the service change being considered would be extended to more households. The low current numbers of trials seemed to indicate that the prevalence of individual research and evaluation is declining. The cost and resource requirements needed to deliver and monitor statistically robust sized trials could be considered a barrier to further research. Specifically, there was a call by 2 LA Waste Managers for this work to be undertaken at a national level where it could be appropriately resourced and managed. When LA Waste Managers were asked how they planned to roll out service changes, most stated that these would be introduced without the need for any trials and that they would refer to national good practice for guidance. Further details of the trends and current thinking of local authorities in relating to communications and engagement activities and monitoring can be found in Appendix B. Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

28 8.0 Barriers to increasing recycling Summary As well as a driver for service changes, finance related barriers were mentioned in relation to recycling and in making changes which will result in increasing recycling. Barriers relating to collection contracts or due to a lack of co-operation within waste partnerships were raised but generally seen as less important issues by LA Waste Managers as it was felt these could be more easily overcome, especially with time. 8.1 Key barriers mentioned To understand the barriers that LA Waste Managers are facing when it comes to increasing recycling, respondents were asked to state these unprompted. There was no limit to the number of barriers that could be mentioned by respondents. For each barrier raised the respondent was then asked to assign an importance score (from extremely important to less important). Where a barrier is flagged as less important this implies that the barrier possibly could be overcome. Each barrier raised was assigned to category (developed prior to the interviews) by the interview. Any barriers that did not fit into these categories were also recorded. The LA Waste Managers were also asked to provide any suggestions as to how the barriers to increasing recycling could be overcome. Figure 12 illustrates the barriers raised by LA Waste Managers that may prevent their authority from increasing recycling. Figure 12: Barriers to increasing recycling as identified by LA Waste Managers Operating expenditure (revenue) Set up expenditure (capital) Internal staff resources Cost of communications Disposal and treatment contracts Absence of targets Need to reduce spend on recycling (savings) Infrastructure issues Lack of incentive from WDA Collection contracts Lack of Waste Partnership direction/ issues Count of respondents Extremely important Very Important Important Less important Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England

29 Operating Costs Operating costs (or revenue expenditure) was seen as the most important barrier with 46 LA Waste Managers, stating it extremely important. 61 stated it was of some importance (46 extremely important, 8 very important and 7 important). The number of LA Waste Managers seeing this barrier as extremely important was significantly higher than the next most mentioned barrier seen to be extremely important which was set up expenditure (capital costs). LA Waste Managers felt that limited budget for operating costs has meant that they have had to compromise the quality and extent of the recycling services they can offer householders. "It s about balancing the books, giving the best service for the money available. Everyone wants the best but it s about what you can afford". In the worst case, LA Waste Managers mentioned having to stop recycling services due to a lack of budget. Cuts tended to be in food waste or garden waste collections, thus enabling the continuation of a core waste collection service. LA Waste Managers consistently were mindful of the need to reduce costs. "With budgets continuing to be cut, priority is not about increasing recycling but is about making sure the core service is delivered. To get big gains need fundamental changes in the service, but do not have the finance or staff resources to do this". Solutions for overcoming the barrier of set up and asset (capital) expenditure were also mentioned frequently for managing operating (revenue) expenditure. A careful review of where cost savings could be made was a common approach mentioned. This included a review of human resources deployed, both the number of staff and hours required, as well as more innovative approaches such as compressed working where the same hours are worked each week but over fewer days. "Compressed workforce working week in 4 days whilst ensuring the trucks work 5 days has mean that the fleet can be cut by 1/5." Generating income by charging householders for garden waste collections to offset running costs were in the pipeline at 19 local authorities, but it was acknowledged that this opt-in approach was likely to reduce recycling tonnages. "A charge is being applied to the garden waste collection service, even though this is thought to have a negative effect on the recycling rate." Further cost cutting exercises were discussed by 9 LA Waste Managers, which included looking at major scheme changes e.g. stopping food waste collections completely and reducing the frequency of collections. Re-letting of contracts or taking collections inhouse were also being considered. One LA Waste Manager said they had plans to run Systematic Survey of Local Authority Plans for Waste and Recycling Services in England